Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Hood

Filing 11

Order re: 10 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting filed by Branch Banking and Trust Company, ( Scheduling Conference, via telephone, set for 2/7/2018 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge P. Bradley Murray.) To access the telephone conference, the parties' attorneys are to use the following numbers: CALL IN 877-873-8018 ACCESS CODE 3291819. Counsel for the parties are to be prepared to advise the courtroom deputy, before the undersigned takes the bench, whether there is a request for reassignment or whether the parties consent to the undersigned conducting all proceedings in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Signed by Magistrate Judge P. Bradley Murray on 1/24/2018. (eec)

Download PDF
IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT   FOR  THE  SOUTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  ALABAMA   SOUTHERN  DIVISION       BRANCH  BANKING  AND  TRUST   COMPANY,  etc.,                   Plaintiff,                     vs.                         JO  ROGERS  HOOD,                     Defendant.     :   :     :     :     :                   CA  17-­0446-­MJ-­MU               ORDER   This  cause  is  before  the  Court  on  the  parties’  Rule  26(f)  report,  filed  January  24,   2018   (Doc.   10).   Although   the   parties   have   not   requested   a   conference   with   the   Court   before  entry  of  the  scheduling  order  (id.  at  1),  it  is  the  undersigned’s  belief  that  bringing   the   parties   and   the   Court   together   at   this   stage   promotes   efficiency   in   the   litigation   process,   helps   avoid   discovery   disputes,   provides   a   clearer   path   to   pretrial   resolution   and   allows   counsel   to   pose   questions   to   the   Court.   See   Fed.R.Civ.P.   16(b)(1)(B)   (providing  that  a  magistrate  judge  must  issue  a  scheduling  order  “after  consulting  with   the   parties’   attorneys   .   .   .   at   a   scheduling   conference.”).   A   scheduling   conference   is   particularly   appropriate   in   this   case,   which   has   landed   on   the   undersigned’s   opt-­out   docket.   (See   Doc.   4.)   Counsel   for   the   parties   will   have   the   opportunity   to   confer   with   their   clients   before   the   scheduling   conference   and   thereby   be   prepared   to   advise   the   courtroom  deputy,  before  the  undersigned  takes  the  bench,  whether  there  is  a  request   for   reassignment   or   whether   the   parties   consent   to   the   undersigned   conducting   all   proceedings  in  this  case  in  accordance  with  28  U.S.C.  §  636(c).  (See  id.)1   In   light   of   the   foregoing,   this   action   shall   come   on   for   a   Rule   16(b)   scheduling   conference  by  telephone  on  February  7,  2018,  at  10:00  a.m.    To  access  the  telephone   conference,  the  parties’  attorneys  are  to  use  the  following  numbers:     CALL  IN       ACCESS  CODE   877-­873-­8018   3291819   Conference   participants   are   requested   to   abstain   from   using   cell   phones   or   the   conference  option  on  landline  phones  due  to  their  propensity  to  disrupt  the  recording     system.         DONE  and  ORDERED  this  the  24th  day  of  January,  2018.                        s/P.  BRADLEY  MURRAY         UNITED  STATES  MAGISTRATE  JUDGE   1       In  addition,  in  light  of  the  parties’  clear  statement  that  discovery  in  this  matter  will   include   electronically   stored   information   (Doc.   10,   at   ¶   12),   counsel   should   be   prepared   to   discuss   whether   this   case   would   benefit   from   entry   of   a   consent   order   governing   confidential   materials  and  discovery  of  ESI  similar  to  that  entered  by  United  States  Magistrate  Judge  William   E.  Cassady  in  National  Steel  City,  LLC  v.  Outokumpu  Stainless  USA,  LLC,  CA  13-­00272-­KD-­C,   Doc.  39,  Attachment  A.       2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?